So T-bills are in special category different from regular stock and fund sales.
IRS:
Q: If I anticipate a sizable capital gain on the sale of an investment during the year, do I need to make a quarterly estimated tax payment during the tax year?
Answer:
Generally, you must make estimated tax payments
https://www.irs.gov/faqs/estimated-tax/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc

As I wrote above, even taking state income taxes into account, T-bills purchased a year ago didn't beat RPHYX, let alone RPHIX, after taxes. Though the numbers do work out differently if you're in the 32% or higher federal bracket.
There is another tax factor to consider: when are taxes due? Interest from 52 week T-bills purchased at the beginning of January 2023 is not taxed until April 2025. That is, all the income is taxed as 2024 income. RPHIX pays periodic dividends, so divs from Jan 2023, Feb 2023, ..., Dec 2023 are all taxed in April 2024.
That's a point in favor of T-bills assuming you purchased T-bills in 2023 that still haven't matured.
Delving even deeper into tax differences, for 2023 RPHIX had a twelve month distribution yield of 5.08% and a total return of 5.87%. That means that only 5.08% is subject to taxes now. The rest of the return is unrealized appreciation. That isn't taxed this coming April, and might not be taxed for years. And when it is, it will be taxed on the federal level at a cap gains rate.
That's a point in favor of RPHIX.
People had lots of reasons to choose T-bills over RPHYX / RPHIX: I wanted more certainty, I wouldn't make that much less with T-bills because of tax issues, I would have to hold the shares for 60+ days to avoid a short term fee, I wanted to diversify/split my bets, etc. Add to that: I couldn't buy shares because the fund was not open a year ago.
Hindsight tells us what we could have done. What matters is what we can do now. RPHYX / RPHIX has reopened to new investors. So there are even more people facing this conundrum now. :-)

RiverPark is known here for some of its subadvised funds (RPHIX, RSIIX) and those are in the news here. But the firm itself has had issues with turnovers & AUM losses.
M* on RLSFX
"Co-founder and co-chief investment officer Mitch Rubin departed the firm in November 2022 on the heels of weak performance across the firm’s equity strategies. Meanwhile, RiverPark’s assets under management has declined 35% since December 2020 as outflows across most of its products have been persistent in recent years. As of March 2023, the firm’s AUM was USD 2.4 billion, 70% of which was in its two subadvised funds, including its largest fund, RiverPark Short Term High Yield. According to CEO and co-founder Morty Schaja, the firm intends to draw upon the research resources of equity subadvisor Wedgewood, where the firm owns a roughly 2% minority interest. It will take some time to assess how this collaboration will work and what impact it may have.
Other attributes of the firm are mixed. Across the board, the firm’s mutual fund fees remain high, though that is in part a function of their comparatively small size. But Schaja has invested more than USD 1 million in five of the six funds RiverPark offers, and he has broadened ownership of the firm to include other employees, which often helps retain personnel. Indeed, the firm has shown stability in the investment analyst ranks."
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/rlsfx/parent

This thread has gone in an interesting direction.
I have been trying to consolidate the IRA to simplify it in case of the sort of stuff that seems more likely to happen as I get older. But I need more help from Mr. Market to get out of some positions. :).
I have temporarily consolidated the taxable by getting rid of a lot of Vanguard indexes. At the time I sold I decided that I would sit out the market until the next budget standoff and the recovery from holidaze hangovers sets in. Time will tell if I missed out.
I don't mind small positions for the taxable. If they can be left alone, they can turn out alright. And it is my hope to leave them alone. I don't find that they need a lot thinking about, or managing. I do sort of keep an eye on them the way I keep an eye on the trees I have planted.
I don't feel the need to buy the 500. I own tech funds instead. They have been the main driver of growth in that index for many years. But why multiple tech funds? They each do something different. So I think of them as a basket. The techs are FSCSX, TDV, and CSGZX.
I've pretty much stopped paying attention to Lipper and M* labels. The weighting box is still somewhat useful. More useful still are MFO premium and the overlap tool at etfrc.com. So I'm not concerned that I have too much mid cap value because I own PEY and SYLD--two different theses resulting in very little overlap. It is the theses that I am buying. That the weights ends up where they do is not really a factor in my decision to buy.

(Snip)
2024 will determine whether I stick with PSTL. David Sherman warned about share dilution in the REIT sector, and that DID happen in '23. Very attractive dividend, though, and lots of room for growth.
9% undervalued. (Morningstar.)
1-year return: +6.74%.
Price/Cash Flow 10.37%
Yield: 6.52%. Payout ratio: 728.85% is NUTS. What gives with that?

@Crash, payout ratio uses “dividends” divided by GAAP earnings.
The best measure of “earnings” (or distributable cash flow) for REITs (due to accounting rules like depreciation etc. which don’t affect cash flow) is funds from operation/adjusted funds from operation (FFO/AFFO)….a quick Google search found PSTL’s AFFO is $1.01, with a distribution of 95 cents. That’s a mid 90’s% payout ratio, which doesn’t allow much retained capital for growth (meaning debt or equity issuance will be required for growth).
Sorry if you know all of this! :)
Happy New Year

A good explanation. Thank you!
EDIT to add: Just remembered that REITS are REQUIRED to pay-out something like 90% of profits, yes? So, then......

(Snip)
2024 will determine whether I stick with PSTL. David Sherman warned about share dilution in the REIT sector, and that DID happen in '23. Very attractive dividend, though, and lots of room for growth.
9% undervalued. (Morningstar.)
1-year return: +6.74%.
Price/Cash Flow 10.37%
Yield: 6.52%. Payout ratio: 728.85% is NUTS. What gives with that?

@Crash, payout ratio uses “dividends” divided by GAAP earnings.
The best measure of “earnings” (or distributable cash flow) for REITs (due to accounting rules like depreciation etc. which don’t affect cash flow) is funds from operation/adjusted funds from operation (FFO/AFFO)….a quick Google search found PSTL’s AFFO is $1.01, with a distribution of 95 cents. That’s a mid 90’s% payout ratio, which doesn’t allow much retained capital for growth (meaning debt or equity issuance will be required for growth).
Sorry if you know all of this! :)
Happy New Year

Ahh, the age-old difference in opinion on how many positions are ideal in a portfolio. Many go for the perceived (index like?) comfort of volume and others can be decisive and have less holdings. Personally, I do think having many or "toe hold" positions can lead to more in-and-out decisions and therefore reduced return. I, admittedly and begrudgingly, tend to go both ways. I feel very comfortable with a few balanced funds making up the bulk of my portfolio. On the other hand, do I need 3 SC funds and 3 LC's? No. But I can be undeceived at times. If I can exist with ~15 funds, I'm feeling pretty good about myself.

I don’t think it’s about “making more” or how many is the “best number”. Might be if someone trades too much as @MikeM says. I just think it’s a lot easier to hold a few large equally weighted positions. (Obviously stocks would need to be in smaller amounts). I got tired of the hassle and associated tracking / record keeping / trading a large inventory requires. As for specific funds, I have opportunities today I never dreamed of while largely parked at TRP. So it hasn’t been hard at all settling on a few I think I understand well and am willing to sink 10% into.
It’s never “set in cement”. If you have 10% in a somewhat aggressive fund that’s done well for a while - maybe shift the 10% into a similar but more conservative fund to protect the gains. Conversely, if some area of investments (equities, commodities, bonds) falls sharply, you might want to shift that 10% into a more aggressive holding to take advantage of lower valuations.
No. I don’t believe there’s any “right” number of funds. A lot of ways to skin a cat!

I also tend to hold funds for quite some time, because funds have their own cycles and often when one fund underperforms another for some time, the pattern subsequently reverses.
Looking at the calendar year percentile rankings, one could say that it's not so much that TRPBX got worse as that it tended to be okay but not great. Or as rforno put it, "kind of 'meh'".
The fund had two bad years, 2021 and 2022 (and FBALX had an even worse record in 2022). These weigh heavily on its three year performance and five year performance. Those two years aside, its yearly performances were typically top third, just.
Even going back to your first decade with these funds (2003-2012), TRPBX barely outpaced FBALX, 8.23% to 8.21%.
I suspect that the fraction of equity that's invested abroad hasn't shifted much in decades. A fund may be permitted to make major allocation changes without ever taking advantage of that freedom. Not worth going back past 2017, though, because earlier annual reports don't seem to contain that information.
Sept 2023 (M*): 32% foreign (19.01%/59.60%)
May 2022 (annual report): 36% foreign (21%/59%)

May 2021 (annual report): 34% foreign (20%/59%)

May 2020 (annual report): 34% foreign (21%/62%)

May 2019 (annual report): 35% foreign (20%/57%)

May 2018 (annual report): 36% foreign (21%/58%)

The 2017 annual report notes that T. Rowe Price made several changes to what were then called the Personal Strategy Funds.

On October 1, 2016, we introduced three new underlying investment strategies to the Personal Strategy Funds. ... The changes include a new allocation to alternatives through a hedge fund-of-funds, as well as initiating an investment in the T. Rowe Price Dynamic Global Bond Fund and an equity index option strategy.

FWIW -
RPGAX was one of my favorite funds when I invested directly with TRP. But haven’t owned or looked at it since. ISTM its performance was decent from inception on to about 2020 when I departed. I liked the idea of allocating approximately 10% to the Blackstone hedge fund. But that’s just me - always looking for a way to hedge the downside or step to a different drummer. True - the Blackstone holding was hard to justify on an expense basis. And it generally detracted from performance over those years. Still - I’m always looking for hedges - and that was the purpose.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355064/000158064223007004/dayhagen_497.htm
497 1 dayhagen_497.htm 497
DHAM_Logo
Day Hagan Smart Value Fund
Class A: DHQAX Class C: DHQCX Class I: DHQIX
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated December 29, 2023 to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated November 1, 2023.
______________________________________________________________________________
The Board of Trustees of Mutual Fund Series Trust has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on January 26, 2024 (“Liquidation Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments and may no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Fund will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents until all shares have been redeemed. Any capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash. Shares of the Fund are otherwise not available for purchase.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED OR EXCHANGED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO JANUARY 26, 2024, WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OR ACCOUNT OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the Fund at 1-877-329-4246 (877-DAY-HAGN).
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
You should read this Supplement in conjunction with the Prospectus, any Summary Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information for the Fund, each dated November 1, 2023, which provide information that you should know about the Fund before investing. These documents are available upon request and without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-877-329-4246 (877-DAY-HAGN) or by writing to 4221 North 203rd Street, Suite 100, Elkhorn, Nebraska 68022.

I agree with hank about the declining service at T. Rowe Price. Performance of their allocation funds merits a closer look, however.
TRPBX is a global allocation (60/40) fund, with about 1/3 of stocks and 1/3 of bonds invested outside the US. For comparison, Vanguard's VSMGX is a global allocation (60/40) fund that's as vanilla as one can get, comprised of Total Stock, Total Bond, Total Int'l Stock, Total Int'l Bond. The bonds are 1/3 foreign, the stocks are 2/5 foreign.
These two funds have run neck and neck since the beginning of 2020. See PortfolioVisualizer. 3.83% annualized for TRP, 3.87% for Vanguard.
It's difficult to classify these funds. M* lumps them in with domestic moderate allocation funds, and they both rate three stars on that scale. As Tarwheel observed, foreign holdings have underperformed. If compared strictly among global allocation funds, these funds would likely have garnered more stars.
Lipper calls TRPBX a mixed asset target allocation moderate fund, while calling VSMGX a mixed asset target allocation growth fund. So it's not surprising that Lipper rates TRPBX a 4 (out of 5) for total return while rating VSMGX only a 1.
The point is that these funds are doing what they said they would do and are performing as expected given what they invest in. If a global allocation fund with dynamic allocations is of more interest than a fund with static allocations, TRP offers RPGAX. PortfolioVisualizer shows that it has done a bit better than the other funds since 2020.
M* calls RPGAX fund a global allocation fund, while Lipper calls it flexible portfolio fund. It is competitive with CIBFX and MDLOX. M* calls both of those global allocation funds; Lipper calls MDLOX a flexible portfolio fund but calls CIBFX a global equity income fund.
Regarding TRRIX, some of the same comments apply. Long term, it has paced VSCGX, Vanguard's 40/60 global allocation (index based) fund. Since the beginning of 2020, it has surpassed VSCGX by a full percentage point (3.18% vs 2.11% annualized).
I agree that it is unfortunately burdened with PRCIX. That's a risk with in-house funds of funds (one that Vanguard circumvents by using underlying index funds). FWIW, TRRIX has somewhat more invested in TRPZX than in PRCIX (TRRIX fact sheet). Though those are the two elephants in the fixed income room.
Lipper loves TRRIX - 5's across the board (except for tax efficiency), since Lipper considers it a Target Now fund. The Vanguard fund is in Lipper's doghouse, since Lipper considers it a Target Allocation Moderate fund.

When in doubt, claim seasonality?
Background: On another forum, you (finally) posted a near-real time BUY of the stock market in late Oct. You got UP a few % an sold your entire position.
The markets then promptly ran up HUGE gains in Nov and Dec. You justified your premature SELL by posting you don't need the extra money.
What followed was a slew of posts back-and-forth between several posters that ultimately caused you to be banned (again) from that forum, this time until EOY '23, for your incessant desire to post your crap.
That's why you are now posting here and on the Fido board - you have lost access to your main stomping grounds.
What's so odd about all that is that you have for YEARs posted about your impeccable trading abilities, ALWAYS making the right and best trades. Yet, on the ONE time that I know of (in over a DECADE) that you posted something near a real time trade, you made money, but only a fraction of what you coulda/shoulda made, and only a fraction of what others who you incessantly demean as inferior investors made.
Now you've graced the MFO platform with your astounding revelation that the market is UP due to seasonality. On the Fido board you recently used your standard "more buyers than sellers" line.
What would all of us stoopid investors do without you?

Added a little bit to existing Vanguard Intermediate-Term Tax-Exempt (VWIUX) position.
Proceeds came from another fund's recent capital gains distribution.

After pulling out significantly from of my Schwab robo earlier this year, I've been adding most of that money back into balanced funds, both conservative and moderate. The "balanced-funds-are-broken" mantra, I thought, was always a dumb knee jerk reaction by the media.
I already have about 20% of my self managed portfolio in PRWCX, but that fund sits in a 401k account that I can't add to. For that reason I recently added PRCFX (10% of total). I bought the manager and investment process and I'm fine with the more conservative equity/income weighting. I also added a chunk to LCR (Leuthold Core ETF) back in the summer and most recently to CGBL (Capital Group Core Balanced ETF) 5% each.

TwitterLINK
"boaz weinstein
@boazweinstein
!!
Saba Capital Reaches Agreement with Certain ClearBridge Funds
ClearBridge MLP and Midstream Fund, ClearBridge MLP and Midstream Total Return Fund, and ClearBridge Energy Midstream Opportunity Fund to Each Commence Cash Tender Offers for 50% of Their Shares at 100% of NAV"
YBB Note.
www.clearbridge.com/
Not to be confused with CrossingBridge www.crossingbridgefunds.com/

The page yogi cited contains this image of a book:

That image says 2023 Edition. It also has a link embedded taking you to more information about the book including: "2023 edition published May 2023". So the cited page most likely dates from May 2023 or later.
Evidence supporting this thesis is that in March 2023 the page was different. So the page was changed no earlier than March 2023.

A popular misconception is that the stock market goes up most (~70%) of the time.
That's correct on an annual basis. And the odds get even better over longer periods of time.

Source: https://www.capitalgroup.com/individual/planning/investing-fundamentals/time-not-timing-is-what-matters.html
But on a day to day basis, the odds are barely better than break even that the market will go up:

Source: https://www.financialsamurai.com/average-daily-percent-move-of-the-stock-market/
This is why I am somewhat obsessive about doing same day exchanges. I invest for the long term and am willing to put my faith in the market going up over a period of years. I do not accept exposure to daily random fluctuations.

Thanks @msf. I consider Fairmark as a good source. In cases where some doubts remain, I keep notes in my personal tax records on what source I used for what I was doing.
By the way, IRS Publication 550 is also quite clear on Holding Periods.
IRS Publication 550, Investment Income & Expenses (Including Capital Gains & Losses),
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p550.pdf
Pg 53 (Holding Periods): "Securities traded on an established market. For securities traded on an established securities market, your holding period begins the day after the trade date you bought the securities, and ends on the trade date you sold them.
Do not confuse the trade date with the settlement date, which is the date by which the stock must be delivered and payment must be made."
Pg 64, Installment sales. You cannot use the installment method to report a gain from the sale of stock or securities traded on an established securities market. You must report the entire gain in the year of sale (the year in which the trade date occurs).
See Pg 59 for more tricky rules on options straddles.

Fairmark (Kaye Thomas) is at the top of my go to list for secondary sources. He's clearer than official pubs and IMHO at least as accurate as any other source.
He provides information and clear explanation not only on the exception for short sale losses, but on the exception to this exception - why short sale gains are not also included in this exception for closing out short sale positions.
https://fairmark.com/investment-taxation/capital-gain/stock-sales/last-day-to-sell/#exception-for-loss-from-short-sales
I see no need to look further. Thanks, yogi.

Some funds do not reinvest capital gains (I think both short and long-term) but reinvest dividends.
Example? Perhaps you're thinking of ETFs structured as UITs (e.g. SPY, QQQ). What UITs cannot reinvest are dividends from underlying equities and interest from underlying debt securities.

Unlike an ETF structured as a UIT, an open-end fund ETF ... has greater flexibility to reinvest dividends from portfolio securities

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2018-14370/p-145
In any case, this limitation refers to internal operation of the funds, not to how they can or cannot reinvest distributions.
So far, I've found no ETFs that reinvest distributions themselves. It seems that it is always the broker reinvesting dividends as a third party service, so that the investor doesn't have to do it manually. It's different " in Canada where some ETF sponsors offer DRIPs.
Even there, the ETF is not issuing new shares but always buying them on the open market. So the ETF is just playing the role of the third party broker and not really acting as the issuer of shares. For example, with Vanguard Canada ETF DRIPs,

your distributions will automatically be reinvested into units purchased on the open market in the five business days following the distribution payment date. ... The price of your new units will be the average price of all units purchased under the plan excluding commissions, fees and transaction costs incurred by the plan agent.

https://www.vanguard.ca/en/investor/products/resources-group/drip
If the brokerage has a deal with the ETF sponsor, then, you may get a small discount on reinvestments, and reinvestments may be earlier.:
This statement sounds like true stock DRIPs that may give small discounts on stocks acquired directly from a company. But that doesn't seem likely with ETFs, as they issue new shares only to authorized participants (APs) in large blocks (creation units). And I haven't been able (yet) to find an ETF DRIP (not involving the broker) in the US.
Getting back to UITs, I'm not sure I'd take the Vanguard page on dividend reinvestment too literally. It reads in part:

Unit investment trusts [footnote omitted], foreign equities, and certain domestic equities and certain American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) are not eligible for the reinvestment program.

That would seem to make SPY and QQQ ineligible for dividend reinvestment at VBS.